Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1531

control, N = 771

treatment, N = 761

p-value2

age

151

50.77 ± 12.58 (25 - 74)

50.87 ± 12.44 (25 - 74)

50.67 ± 12.81 (28 - 73)

0.925

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

153

0.882

f

118 (77%)

59 (77%)

59 (78%)

m

35 (23%)

18 (23%)

17 (22%)

occupation

153

0.810

day_training

2 (1.3%)

2 (2.6%)

0 (0%)

full_time

20 (13%)

10 (13%)

10 (13%)

homemaker

14 (9.2%)

7 (9.1%)

7 (9.2%)

other

2 (1.3%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.6%)

part_time

27 (18%)

13 (17%)

14 (18%)

retired

41 (27%)

20 (26%)

21 (28%)

self_employ

7 (4.6%)

4 (5.2%)

3 (3.9%)

student

2 (1.3%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.6%)

t_and_e

2 (1.3%)

1 (1.3%)

1 (1.3%)

unemploy

36 (24%)

20 (26%)

16 (21%)

marital

153

0.912

cohabitation

1 (0.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.3%)

divore

16 (10%)

10 (13%)

6 (7.9%)

in_relationship

4 (2.6%)

2 (2.6%)

2 (2.6%)

married

45 (29%)

23 (30%)

22 (29%)

none

75 (49%)

36 (47%)

39 (51%)

seperation

3 (2.0%)

2 (2.6%)

1 (1.3%)

widow

9 (5.9%)

4 (5.2%)

5 (6.6%)

edu

153

0.148

bachelor

36 (24%)

13 (17%)

23 (30%)

diploma

30 (20%)

20 (26%)

10 (13%)

hd_ad

5 (3.3%)

4 (5.2%)

1 (1.3%)

postgraduate

13 (8.5%)

6 (7.8%)

7 (9.2%)

primary

9 (5.9%)

3 (3.9%)

6 (7.9%)

secondary_1_3

17 (11%)

10 (13%)

7 (9.2%)

secondary_4_5

36 (24%)

19 (25%)

17 (22%)

secondary_6_7

7 (4.6%)

2 (2.6%)

5 (6.6%)

fam_income

153

0.896

10001_12000

6 (3.9%)

2 (2.6%)

4 (5.3%)

12001_14000

8 (5.2%)

4 (5.2%)

4 (5.3%)

14001_16000

8 (5.2%)

3 (3.9%)

5 (6.6%)

16001_18000

4 (2.6%)

2 (2.6%)

2 (2.6%)

18001_20000

8 (5.2%)

6 (7.8%)

2 (2.6%)

20001_above

29 (19%)

16 (21%)

13 (17%)

2001_4000

21 (14%)

12 (16%)

9 (12%)

4001_6000

16 (10%)

6 (7.8%)

10 (13%)

6001_8000

13 (8.5%)

7 (9.1%)

6 (7.9%)

8001_10000

11 (7.2%)

5 (6.5%)

6 (7.9%)

below_2000

29 (19%)

14 (18%)

15 (20%)

medication

153

135 (88%)

68 (88%)

67 (88%)

0.976

onset_duration

150

15.23 ± 10.51 (0 - 56)

15.82 ± 11.37 (0 - 56)

14.61 ± 9.56 (0 - 35)

0.479

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

148

35.74 ± 13.93 (10 - 65)

34.89 ± 12.61 (10 - 61)

36.62 ± 15.21 (14 - 65)

0.452

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1531

control, N = 771

treatment, N = 761

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

153

3.17 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

3.19 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.13 (1 - 5)

0.792

recovery_stage_b

153

17.92 ± 2.76 (8 - 24)

17.87 ± 2.87 (8 - 24)

17.97 ± 2.66 (13 - 24)

0.817

ras_confidence

153

29.97 ± 5.09 (15 - 45)

29.74 ± 4.78 (15 - 40)

30.20 ± 5.40 (18 - 45)

0.580

ras_willingness

153

11.78 ± 2.01 (5 - 15)

11.68 ± 1.99 (5 - 15)

11.89 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)

0.501

ras_goal

153

17.41 ± 3.05 (11 - 25)

17.22 ± 2.85 (11 - 24)

17.61 ± 3.24 (11 - 25)

0.437

ras_reliance

153

13.21 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)

13.05 ± 2.76 (5 - 18)

13.37 ± 3.03 (7 - 20)

0.500

ras_domination

153

9.88 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)

10.12 ± 2.29 (3 - 15)

9.64 ± 2.49 (3 - 15)

0.224

symptom

153

29.84 ± 9.09 (14 - 56)

29.75 ± 9.34 (14 - 55)

29.93 ± 8.89 (15 - 56)

0.903

slof_work

153

22.51 ± 4.81 (10 - 30)

22.83 ± 4.32 (13 - 30)

22.18 ± 5.27 (10 - 30)

0.407

slof_relationship

153

25.21 ± 5.97 (9 - 35)

24.75 ± 5.94 (9 - 35)

25.67 ± 6.01 (11 - 35)

0.344

satisfaction

153

20.46 ± 7.13 (5 - 35)

19.65 ± 6.77 (5 - 33)

21.29 ± 7.43 (5 - 35)

0.156

mhc_emotional

153

10.84 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

10.57 ± 3.67 (3 - 17)

11.12 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

0.375

mhc_social

153

14.99 ± 5.59 (5 - 30)

14.74 ± 5.57 (5 - 30)

15.24 ± 5.63 (5 - 29)

0.584

mhc_psychological

153

21.90 ± 6.39 (6 - 36)

21.68 ± 6.09 (7 - 36)

22.13 ± 6.72 (6 - 36)

0.660

resilisnce

153

16.54 ± 4.62 (6 - 30)

16.17 ± 4.11 (6 - 24)

16.91 ± 5.08 (6 - 30)

0.324

social_provision

153

13.52 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)

13.12 ± 2.58 (5 - 20)

13.92 ± 3.13 (5 - 20)

0.085

els_value_living

153

16.97 ± 3.11 (5 - 25)

16.61 ± 2.88 (6 - 22)

17.33 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

0.153

els_life_fulfill

153

12.75 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)

12.31 ± 3.23 (5 - 19)

13.18 ± 3.48 (4 - 20)

0.110

els

153

29.71 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

28.92 ± 5.45 (11 - 38)

30.51 ± 6.25 (9 - 45)

0.095

social_connect

153

26.50 ± 9.42 (8 - 48)

26.88 ± 9.01 (8 - 48)

26.11 ± 9.86 (8 - 48)

0.611

shs_agency

153

14.24 ± 5.10 (3 - 24)

13.81 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)

14.68 ± 5.47 (3 - 24)

0.288

shs_pathway

153

16.03 ± 4.00 (4 - 24)

15.61 ± 3.85 (5 - 24)

16.46 ± 4.12 (4 - 24)

0.189

shs

153

30.27 ± 8.68 (7 - 48)

29.42 ± 8.16 (8 - 45)

31.14 ± 9.16 (7 - 48)

0.219

esteem

153

12.58 ± 1.61 (9 - 20)

12.57 ± 1.60 (9 - 18)

12.58 ± 1.63 (10 - 20)

0.977

mlq_search

153

14.82 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)

14.55 ± 3.42 (6 - 21)

15.11 ± 3.61 (3 - 21)

0.327

mlq_presence

153

13.37 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.17 ± 3.97 (4 - 21)

13.58 ± 4.65 (3 - 21)

0.558

mlq

153

28.20 ± 6.90 (6 - 42)

27.71 ± 6.33 (10 - 40)

28.68 ± 7.45 (6 - 42)

0.387

empower

153

19.24 ± 4.20 (6 - 30)

18.88 ± 4.07 (11 - 30)

19.61 ± 4.32 (6 - 30)

0.289

ismi_resistance

153

14.49 ± 2.47 (5 - 20)

14.48 ± 2.13 (10 - 20)

14.50 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

0.961

ismi_discrimation

153

11.63 ± 3.08 (5 - 20)

11.95 ± 2.94 (5 - 20)

11.32 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)

0.206

sss_affective

153

9.99 ± 3.53 (3 - 18)

10.01 ± 3.45 (3 - 18)

9.96 ± 3.62 (3 - 18)

0.927

sss_behavior

153

9.68 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

9.86 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)

9.50 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

0.553

sss_cognitive

153

8.22 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

8.23 ± 3.67 (3 - 18)

8.20 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

0.952

sss

153

27.88 ± 10.12 (9 - 54)

28.10 ± 10.00 (9 - 54)

27.66 ± 10.31 (9 - 54)

0.786

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.19

0.133

2.93, 3.46

group

control

treatment

-0.050

0.189

-0.420, 0.320

0.791

time_point

1st

2nd

0.086

0.209

-0.323, 0.495

0.681

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.393

0.297

-0.189, 0.975

0.188

Pseudo R square

0.019

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.324

17.2, 18.5

group

control

treatment

0.104

0.459

-0.797, 1.00

0.822

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.433

0.461

-1.34, 0.470

0.350

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.05

0.657

-0.235, 2.34

0.113

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.582

28.6, 30.9

group

control

treatment

0.457

0.825

-1.16, 2.07

0.580

time_point

1st

2nd

0.951

0.645

-0.313, 2.21

0.145

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.925

0.919

-0.876, 2.73

0.317

Pseudo R square

0.023

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.229

11.2, 12.1

group

control

treatment

0.219

0.325

-0.417, 0.856

0.500

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.353

0.255

-0.853, 0.148

0.171

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.654

0.364

-0.059, 1.37

0.076

Pseudo R square

0.016

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.355

16.5, 17.9

group

control

treatment

0.384

0.503

-0.602, 1.37

0.446

time_point

1st

2nd

0.032

0.455

-0.860, 0.923

0.945

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.787

0.648

-0.483, 2.06

0.228

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.331

12.4, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.316

0.469

-0.603, 1.24

0.501

time_point

1st

2nd

0.357

0.377

-0.383, 1.10

0.347

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.611

0.537

-0.442, 1.66

0.259

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.1

0.267

9.59, 10.6

group

control

treatment

-0.472

0.379

-1.21, 0.270

0.214

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.305

0.362

-1.02, 0.405

0.402

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.37

0.516

0.357, 2.38

0.010

Pseudo R square

0.023

symptom

(Intercept)

29.8

1.041

27.7, 31.8

group

control

treatment

0.181

1.478

-2.71, 3.08

0.903

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.599

0.925

-2.41, 1.21

0.519

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.14

1.318

-3.72, 1.45

0.392

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.8

0.548

21.8, 23.9

group

control

treatment

-0.647

0.778

-2.17, 0.877

0.407

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.511

0.599

-1.69, 0.664

0.397

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.775

0.854

-0.898, 2.45

0.367

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.8

0.678

23.4, 26.1

group

control

treatment

0.918

0.961

-0.966, 2.80

0.341

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.508

0.718

-1.91, 0.899

0.481

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.820

1.022

-1.18, 2.82

0.425

Pseudo R square

0.011

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.6

0.816

18.0, 21.2

group

control

treatment

1.64

1.158

-0.629, 3.91

0.158

time_point

1st

2nd

0.747

0.868

-0.954, 2.45

0.392

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.667

1.237

-1.76, 3.09

0.592

Pseudo R square

0.021

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.429

9.73, 11.4

group

control

treatment

0.547

0.609

-0.647, 1.74

0.370

time_point

1st

2nd

0.277

0.428

-0.562, 1.12

0.519

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.094

0.610

-1.10, 1.29

0.878

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.7

0.657

13.5, 16.0

group

control

treatment

0.497

0.932

-1.33, 2.32

0.595

time_point

1st

2nd

0.507

0.731

-0.925, 1.94

0.490

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.653

1.041

-1.39, 2.69

0.532

Pseudo R square

0.009

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.7

0.755

20.2, 23.2

group

control

treatment

0.456

1.072

-1.64, 2.56

0.671

time_point

1st

2nd

0.850

0.835

-0.787, 2.49

0.312

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.149

1.189

-2.18, 2.48

0.901

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.519

15.2, 17.2

group

control

treatment

0.739

0.736

-0.703, 2.18

0.316

time_point

1st

2nd

0.361

0.618

-0.851, 1.57

0.561

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.65

0.880

-0.079, 3.37

0.065

Pseudo R square

0.038

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.328

12.5, 13.8

group

control

treatment

0.804

0.465

-0.108, 1.72

0.086

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.615

0.396

-1.39, 0.161

0.124

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.882

0.564

-0.224, 1.99

0.122

Pseudo R square

0.039

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.358

15.9, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.719

0.508

-0.278, 1.72

0.159

time_point

1st

2nd

0.385

0.411

-0.421, 1.19

0.352

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.154

0.586

-0.993, 1.30

0.793

Pseudo R square

0.019

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.377

11.6, 13.1

group

control

treatment

0.873

0.535

-0.176, 1.92

0.105

time_point

1st

2nd

0.512

0.373

-0.220, 1.24

0.175

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.013

0.531

-1.03, 1.05

0.981

Pseudo R square

0.022

els

(Intercept)

28.9

0.673

27.6, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.59

0.955

-0.281, 3.46

0.098

time_point

1st

2nd

0.902

0.647

-0.366, 2.17

0.167

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.095

0.921

-1.71, 1.90

0.918

Pseudo R square

0.024

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

1.087

24.8, 29.0

group

control

treatment

-0.778

1.542

-3.80, 2.24

0.615

time_point

1st

2nd

0.610

1.037

-1.42, 2.64

0.558

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.39

1.477

-6.29, -0.500

0.024

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.578

12.7, 14.9

group

control

treatment

0.879

0.821

-0.729, 2.49

0.286

time_point

1st

2nd

0.189

0.580

-0.947, 1.33

0.745

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.574

0.826

-1.04, 2.19

0.489

Pseudo R square

0.013

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.6

0.448

14.7, 16.5

group

control

treatment

0.850

0.635

-0.395, 2.10

0.183

time_point

1st

2nd

0.239

0.463

-0.669, 1.15

0.608

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.010

0.659

-1.30, 1.28

0.988

Pseudo R square

0.012

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

0.977

27.5, 31.3

group

control

treatment

1.73

1.387

-0.989, 4.45

0.214

time_point

1st

2nd

0.419

0.961

-1.46, 2.30

0.664

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.551

1.369

-2.13, 3.23

0.688

Pseudo R square

0.014

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.172

12.2, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.008

0.245

-0.472, 0.487

0.976

time_point

1st

2nd

0.168

0.264

-0.348, 0.685

0.525

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.000

0.375

-0.735, 0.736

0.999

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.397

13.8, 15.3

group

control

treatment

0.560

0.563

-0.544, 1.66

0.321

time_point

1st

2nd

0.431

0.509

-0.567, 1.43

0.400

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.647

0.725

-2.07, 0.775

0.375

Pseudo R square

0.005

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.488

12.2, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.410

0.692

-0.946, 1.77

0.554

time_point

1st

2nd

0.576

0.559

-0.520, 1.67

0.306

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.089

0.796

-1.65, 1.47

0.911

Pseudo R square

0.005

mlq

(Intercept)

27.7

0.790

26.2, 29.3

group

control

treatment

0.970

1.121

-1.23, 3.17

0.388

time_point

1st

2nd

0.998

0.925

-0.816, 2.81

0.284

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.701

1.318

-3.28, 1.88

0.596

Pseudo R square

0.005

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.475

18.0, 19.8

group

control

treatment

0.722

0.674

-0.600, 2.04

0.286

time_point

1st

2nd

0.689

0.477

-0.246, 1.62

0.153

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.720

0.680

-2.05, 0.612

0.293

Pseudo R square

0.007

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.278

13.9, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.019

0.395

-0.755, 0.794

0.961

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.146

0.377

-0.885, 0.594

0.700

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.847

0.537

-0.206, 1.90

0.118

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.9

0.354

11.3, 12.6

group

control

treatment

-0.632

0.502

-1.62, 0.352

0.210

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.154

0.396

-0.930, 0.622

0.698

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.206

0.564

-1.31, 0.899

0.715

Pseudo R square

0.014

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.0

0.400

9.23, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.052

0.567

-1.16, 1.06

0.926

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.115

0.433

-0.964, 0.735

0.792

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.06

0.617

-2.27, 0.153

0.091

Pseudo R square

0.014

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.86

0.419

9.04, 10.7

group

control

treatment

-0.357

0.595

-1.52, 0.809

0.549

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.240

0.451

-1.12, 0.644

0.596

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.470

0.642

-1.73, 0.789

0.467

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.23

0.417

7.42, 9.05

group

control

treatment

-0.036

0.591

-1.20, 1.12

0.951

time_point

1st

2nd

0.296

0.463

-0.611, 1.20

0.525

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.20

0.659

-2.49, 0.093

0.073

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss

(Intercept)

28.1

1.149

25.9, 30.4

group

control

treatment

-0.446

1.631

-3.64, 2.75

0.785

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.137

1.129

-2.35, 2.08

0.904

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.52

1.608

-5.67, 0.630

0.121

Pseudo R square

0.011

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.19 (95% CI [2.93, 3.46], t(214) = 24.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.32], t(214) = -0.27, p = 0.791; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.49], t(214) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.98], t(214) = 1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.87 (95% CI [17.24, 18.50], t(214) = 55.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.00], t(214) = 0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.47], t(214) = -0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.34], t(214) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.74 (95% CI [28.60, 30.88], t(214) = 51.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.07], t(214) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.21], t(214) = 1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.88, 2.73], t(214) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.68 (95% CI [11.23, 12.12], t(214) = 51.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.86], t(214) = 0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.15], t(214) = -1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.37], t(214) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.22 (95% CI [16.53, 17.92], t(214) = 48.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.37], t(214) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.92], t(214) = 0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.06], t(214) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.05 (95% CI [12.40, 13.70], t(214) = 39.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.24], t(214) = 0.67, p = 0.500; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.10], t(214) = 0.95, p = 0.344; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.66], t(214) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.12 (95% CI [9.59, 10.64], t(214) = 37.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.27], t(214) = -1.25, p = 0.213; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.40], t(214) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [0.36, 2.38], t(214) = 2.65, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.15, 1.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.75 (95% CI [27.71, 31.79], t(214) = 28.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-2.71, 3.08], t(214) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.41, 1.21], t(214) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.45], t(214) = -0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.83 (95% CI [21.76, 23.91], t(214) = 41.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.88], t(214) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.66], t(214) = -0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.45], t(214) = 0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.75 (95% CI [23.43, 26.08], t(214) = 36.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.97, 2.80], t(214) = 0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.90], t(214) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.18, 2.82], t(214) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.65 (95% CI [18.05, 21.25], t(214) = 24.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.64, 95% CI [-0.63, 3.91], t(214) = 1.42, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.95, 2.45], t(214) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.76, 3.09], t(214) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.57 (95% CI [9.73, 11.41], t(214) = 24.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.74], t(214) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.12], t(214) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.29], t(214) = 0.15, p = 0.878; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.74 (95% CI [13.45, 16.03], t(214) = 22.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.32], t(214) = 0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.94], t(214) = 0.69, p = 0.487; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.39, 2.69], t(214) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.68 (95% CI [20.19, 23.16], t(214) = 28.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.64, 2.56], t(214) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.49], t(214) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.18, 2.48], t(214) = 0.13, p = 0.900; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.17 (95% CI [15.15, 17.19], t(214) = 31.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.18], t(214) = 1.00, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.57], t(214) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.37], t(214) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.47, 13.76], t(214) = 40.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.72], t(214) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.16], t(214) = -1.55, p = 0.120; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.99], t(214) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.61 (95% CI [15.91, 17.31], t(214) = 46.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.72], t(214) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.19], t(214) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.30], t(214) = 0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.31 (95% CI [11.57, 13.05], t(214) = 32.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.92], t(214) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.24], t(214) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.05], t(214) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 3.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.92 (95% CI [27.60, 30.24], t(214) = 42.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.28, 3.46], t(214) = 1.67, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.17], t(214) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.90], t(214) = 0.10, p = 0.918; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.88 (95% CI [24.75, 29.01], t(214) = 24.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-3.80, 2.24], t(214) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.64], t(214) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.39, 95% CI [-6.29, -0.50], t(214) = -2.30, p = 0.022; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.81 (95% CI [12.67, 14.94], t(214) = 23.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.49], t(214) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.33], t(214) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.19], t(214) = 0.70, p = 0.487; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.61 (95% CI [14.73, 16.49], t(214) = 34.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.10], t(214) = 1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.15], t(214) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.28], t(214) = -0.02, p = 0.988; Std. beta = -2.57e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.42 (95% CI [27.50, 31.33], t(214) = 30.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.73, 95% CI [-0.99, 4.45], t(214) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.30], t(214) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.13, 3.23], t(214) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.57 (95% CI [12.23, 12.91], t(214) = 72.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.52e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.49], t(214) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 5.03e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.68], t(214) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.10e-04, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.74], t(214) = 8.27e-04, p > .999; Std. beta = 2.08e-04, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.75e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.55 (95% CI [13.77, 15.32], t(214) = 36.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.66], t(214) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.43], t(214) = 0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.07, 0.77], t(214) = -0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.21, 14.12], t(214) = 27.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.77], t(214) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.67], t(214) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.65, 1.47], t(214) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.71 (95% CI [26.17, 29.26], t(214) = 35.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-1.23, 3.17], t(214) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.81], t(214) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-3.28, 1.88], t(214) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.88 (95% CI [17.95, 19.81], t(214) = 39.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.04], t(214) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.62], t(214) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-2.05, 0.61], t(214) = -1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.93, 15.03], t(214) = 52.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.79], t(214) = 0.05, p = 0.961; Std. beta = 7.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.59], t(214) = -0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.90], t(214) = 1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.95 (95% CI [11.25, 12.64], t(214) = 33.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.35], t(214) = -1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.62], t(214) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.90], t(214) = -0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.23, 10.80], t(214) = 25.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.06], t(214) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.73], t(214) = -0.26, p = 0.791; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.15], t(214) = -1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.86 (95% CI [9.04, 10.68], t(214) = 23.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.81], t(214) = -0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.64], t(214) = -0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.79], t(214) = -0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.23 (95% CI [7.42, 9.05], t(214) = 19.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.12], t(214) = -0.06, p = 0.951; Std. beta = -9.85e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.20], t(214) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.49, 0.09], t(214) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.10 (95% CI [25.85, 30.36], t(214) = 24.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-3.64, 2.75], t(214) = -0.27, p = 0.784; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.35, 2.08], t(214) = -0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.52, 95% CI [-5.67, 0.63], t(214) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

691.995

702.176

-342.997

685.995

recovery_stage_a

random

6

692.622

712.984

-340.311

680.622

5.373

3

0.146

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,071.971

1,082.152

-532.986

1,065.971

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,074.544

1,094.906

-531.272

1,062.544

3.427

3

0.330

ras_confidence

null

3

1,308.453

1,318.634

-651.227

1,302.453

ras_confidence

random

6

1,303.580

1,323.942

-645.790

1,291.580

10.873

3

0.012

ras_willingness

null

3

892.595

902.776

-443.297

886.595

ras_willingness

random

6

893.851

914.213

-440.926

881.851

4.743

3

0.192

ras_goal

null

3

1,101.903

1,112.084

-547.952

1,095.903

ras_goal

random

6

1,103.253

1,123.615

-545.627

1,091.253

4.650

3

0.199

ras_reliance

null

3

1,060.665

1,070.846

-527.332

1,054.665

ras_reliance

random

6

1,058.451

1,078.813

-523.225

1,046.451

8.214

3

0.042

ras_domination

null

3

987.312

997.493

-490.656

981.312

ras_domination

random

6

984.586

1,004.947

-486.293

972.586

8.726

3

0.033

symptom

null

3

1,530.047

1,540.228

-762.024

1,524.047

symptom

random

6

1,532.208

1,552.570

-760.104

1,520.208

3.839

3

0.279

slof_work

null

3

1,271.090

1,281.270

-632.545

1,265.090

slof_work

random

6

1,275.774

1,296.136

-631.887

1,263.774

1.316

3

0.725

slof_relationship

null

3

1,361.328

1,371.509

-677.664

1,355.328

slof_relationship

random

6

1,365.182

1,385.544

-676.591

1,353.182

2.146

3

0.543

satisfaction

null

3

1,447.485

1,457.666

-720.743

1,441.485

satisfaction

random

6

1,447.571

1,467.933

-717.786

1,435.571

5.914

3

0.116

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,153.043

1,163.223

-573.521

1,147.043

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,156.946

1,177.308

-572.473

1,144.946

2.096

3

0.553

mhc_social

null

3

1,354.965

1,365.146

-674.482

1,348.965

mhc_social

random

6

1,357.496

1,377.858

-672.748

1,345.496

3.469

3

0.325

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,414.883

1,425.063

-704.441

1,408.883

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,418.199

1,438.561

-703.100

1,406.199

2.684

3

0.443

resilisnce

null

3

1,268.515

1,278.696

-631.257

1,262.515

resilisnce

random

6

1,261.769

1,282.131

-624.885

1,249.769

12.746

3

0.005

social_provision

null

3

1,063.819

1,074.000

-528.910

1,057.819

social_provision

random

6

1,061.716

1,082.077

-524.858

1,049.716

8.104

3

0.044

els_value_living

null

3

1,093.586

1,103.767

-543.793

1,087.586

els_value_living

random

6

1,094.632

1,114.993

-541.316

1,082.632

4.954

3

0.175

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,099.419

1,109.600

-546.709

1,093.419

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,098.775

1,119.137

-543.388

1,086.775

6.644

3

0.084

els

null

3

1,351.496

1,361.677

-672.748

1,345.496

els

random

6

1,350.234

1,370.596

-669.117

1,338.234

7.262

3

0.064

social_connect

null

3

1,562.423

1,572.604

-778.211

1,556.423

social_connect

random

6

1,560.069

1,580.431

-774.034

1,548.069

8.354

3

0.039

shs_agency

null

3

1,286.123

1,296.304

-640.062

1,280.123

shs_agency

random

6

1,288.685

1,309.046

-638.342

1,276.685

3.439

3

0.329

shs_pathway

null

3

1,176.282

1,186.463

-585.141

1,170.282

shs_pathway

random

6

1,179.878

1,200.240

-583.939

1,167.878

2.404

3

0.493

shs

null

3

1,514.184

1,524.365

-754.092

1,508.184

shs

random

6

1,517.085

1,537.446

-752.542

1,505.085

3.099

3

0.377

esteem

null

3

799.297

809.478

-396.648

793.297

esteem

random

6

804.474

824.836

-396.237

792.474

0.823

3

0.844

mlq_search

null

3

1,148.132

1,158.313

-571.066

1,142.132

mlq_search

random

6

1,152.658

1,173.020

-570.329

1,140.658

1.474

3

0.688

mlq_presence

null

3

1,226.345

1,236.526

-610.172

1,220.345

mlq_presence

random

6

1,230.177

1,250.539

-609.089

1,218.177

2.168

3

0.538

mlq

null

3

1,440.783

1,450.964

-717.392

1,434.783

mlq

random

6

1,444.940

1,465.302

-716.470

1,432.940

1.843

3

0.606

empower

null

3

1,199.396

1,209.577

-596.698

1,193.396

empower

random

6

1,202.561

1,222.922

-595.280

1,190.561

2.835

3

0.418

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,000.896

1,011.076

-497.448

994.896

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,002.968

1,023.330

-495.484

990.968

3.927

3

0.269

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,083.034

1,093.215

-538.517

1,077.034

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,086.125

1,106.487

-537.063

1,074.125

2.909

3

0.406

sss_affective

null

3

1,137.324

1,147.505

-565.662

1,131.324

sss_affective

random

6

1,135.849

1,156.211

-561.925

1,123.849

7.475

3

0.058

sss_behavior

null

3

1,153.391

1,163.572

-573.695

1,147.391

sss_behavior

random

6

1,156.005

1,176.367

-572.002

1,144.005

3.386

3

0.336

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,155.645

1,165.825

-574.822

1,149.645

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,157.180

1,177.541

-572.590

1,145.180

4.465

3

0.215

sss

null

3

1,588.181

1,598.362

-791.090

1,582.181

sss

random

6

1,588.322

1,608.684

-788.161

1,576.322

5.858

3

0.119

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

77

3.19 ± 1.17

76

3.14 ± 1.17

0.791

0.053

recovery_stage_a

2nd

34

3.28 ± 1.14

-0.090

33

3.62 ± 1.14

-0.503

0.218

-0.360

recovery_stage_b

1st

77

17.87 ± 2.84

76

17.97 ± 2.84

0.822

-0.050

recovery_stage_b

2nd

34

17.44 ± 2.67

0.211

33

18.59 ± 2.67

-0.301

0.078

-0.561

ras_confidence

1st

77

29.74 ± 5.10

76

30.20 ± 5.10

0.580

-0.165

ras_confidence

2nd

34

30.69 ± 4.35

-0.342

33

32.07 ± 4.34

-0.675

0.195

-0.498

ras_willingness

1st

77

11.68 ± 2.01

76

11.89 ± 2.01

0.500

-0.200

ras_willingness

2nd

34

11.32 ± 1.72

0.321

33

12.20 ± 1.71

-0.274

0.038

-0.794

ras_goal

1st

77

17.22 ± 3.11

76

17.61 ± 3.11

0.446

-0.193

ras_goal

2nd

34

17.25 ± 2.81

-0.016

33

18.42 ± 2.80

-0.411

0.089

-0.588

ras_reliance

1st

77

13.05 ± 2.90

76

13.37 ± 2.90

0.501

-0.194

ras_reliance

2nd

34

13.41 ± 2.50

-0.219

33

14.34 ± 2.49

-0.594

0.130

-0.570

ras_domination

1st

77

10.12 ± 2.34

76

9.64 ± 2.34

0.214

0.295

ras_domination

2nd

34

9.81 ± 2.16

0.191

33

10.71 ± 2.16

-0.663

0.091

-0.559

symptom

1st

77

29.75 ± 9.14

76

29.93 ± 9.14

0.903

-0.046

symptom

2nd

34

29.15 ± 7.25

0.153

33

28.20 ± 7.22

0.443

0.590

0.244

slof_work

1st

77

22.83 ± 4.81

76

22.18 ± 4.81

0.407

0.251

slof_work

2nd

34

22.32 ± 4.08

0.198

33

22.45 ± 4.07

-0.103

0.898

-0.050

slof_relationship

1st

77

24.75 ± 5.95

76

25.67 ± 5.95

0.341

-0.298

slof_relationship

2nd

34

24.25 ± 4.99

0.165

33

25.98 ± 4.97

-0.101

0.155

-0.565

satisfaction

1st

77

19.65 ± 7.16

76

21.29 ± 7.16

0.158

-0.441

satisfaction

2nd

34

20.40 ± 6.02

-0.201

33

22.70 ± 6.00

-0.380

0.118

-0.620

mhc_emotional

1st

77

10.57 ± 3.77

76

11.12 ± 3.77

0.370

-0.299

mhc_emotional

2nd

34

10.85 ± 3.10

-0.152

33

11.49 ± 3.09

-0.203

0.397

-0.351

mhc_social

1st

77

14.74 ± 5.76

76

15.24 ± 5.76

0.595

-0.158

mhc_social

2nd

34

15.25 ± 4.92

-0.161

33

16.40 ± 4.91

-0.369

0.339

-0.365

mhc_psychological

1st

77

21.68 ± 6.63

76

22.13 ± 6.63

0.671

-0.127

mhc_psychological

2nd

34

22.53 ± 5.64

-0.237

33

23.13 ± 5.63

-0.278

0.661

-0.168

resilisnce

1st

77

16.17 ± 4.55

76

16.91 ± 4.55

0.316

-0.276

resilisnce

2nd

34

16.53 ± 3.98

-0.134

33

18.92 ± 3.98

-0.748

0.015

-0.890

social_provision

1st

77

13.12 ± 2.88

76

13.92 ± 2.88

0.086

-0.467

social_provision

2nd

34

12.50 ± 2.53

0.357

33

14.19 ± 2.53

-0.155

0.007

-0.979

els_value_living

1st

77

16.61 ± 3.14

76

17.33 ± 3.14

0.159

-0.405

els_value_living

2nd

34

17.00 ± 2.71

-0.217

33

17.87 ± 2.71

-0.304

0.189

-0.492

els_life_fulfill

1st

77

12.31 ± 3.31

76

13.18 ± 3.31

0.105

-0.549

els_life_fulfill

2nd

34

12.82 ± 2.71

-0.322

33

13.71 ± 2.70

-0.330

0.182

-0.557

els

1st

77

28.92 ± 5.91

76

30.51 ± 5.91

0.098

-0.578

els

2nd

34

29.82 ± 4.80

-0.328

33

31.51 ± 4.78

-0.362

0.151

-0.613

social_connect

1st

77

26.88 ± 9.54

76

26.11 ± 9.54

0.615

0.176

social_connect

2nd

34

27.49 ± 7.73

-0.138

33

23.32 ± 7.70

0.632

0.028

0.946

shs_agency

1st

77

13.81 ± 5.07

76

14.68 ± 5.07

0.286

-0.355

shs_agency

2nd

34

13.99 ± 4.18

-0.077

33

15.45 ± 4.17

-0.309

0.156

-0.587

shs_pathway

1st

77

15.61 ± 3.93

76

16.46 ± 3.93

0.183

-0.429

shs_pathway

2nd

34

15.85 ± 3.27

-0.120

33

16.69 ± 3.26

-0.115

0.293

-0.424

shs

1st

77

29.42 ± 8.58

76

31.14 ± 8.58

0.214

-0.422

shs

2nd

34

29.83 ± 7.02

-0.102

33

32.12 ± 6.99

-0.237

0.184

-0.557

esteem

1st

77

12.57 ± 1.51

76

12.58 ± 1.51

0.976

-0.006

esteem

2nd

34

12.74 ± 1.46

-0.141

33

12.75 ± 1.46

-0.141

0.983

-0.007

mlq_search

1st

77

14.55 ± 3.48

76

15.11 ± 3.48

0.321

-0.251

mlq_search

2nd

34

14.98 ± 3.14

-0.193

33

14.89 ± 3.13

0.097

0.910

0.039

mlq_presence

1st

77

13.17 ± 4.28

76

13.58 ± 4.28

0.554

-0.170

mlq_presence

2nd

34

13.74 ± 3.69

-0.239

33

14.07 ± 3.69

-0.201

0.722

-0.133

mlq

1st

77

27.71 ± 6.93

76

28.68 ± 6.93

0.388

-0.242

mlq

2nd

34

28.71 ± 6.03

-0.249

33

28.98 ± 6.02

-0.074

0.855

-0.067

empower

1st

77

18.88 ± 4.17

76

19.61 ± 4.17

0.286

-0.355

empower

2nd

34

19.57 ± 3.44

-0.338

33

19.57 ± 3.43

0.015

0.998

-0.001

ismi_resistance

1st

77

14.48 ± 2.44

76

14.50 ± 2.44

0.961

-0.012

ismi_resistance

2nd

34

14.33 ± 2.25

0.087

33

15.20 ± 2.25

-0.421

0.116

-0.520

ismi_discrimation

1st

77

11.95 ± 3.11

76

11.32 ± 3.11

0.210

0.371

ismi_discrimation

2nd

34

11.79 ± 2.66

0.090

33

10.96 ± 2.65

0.211

0.197

0.492

sss_affective

1st

77

10.01 ± 3.51

76

9.96 ± 3.51

0.926

0.028

sss_affective

2nd

34

9.90 ± 2.97

0.062

33

8.79 ± 2.96

0.630

0.127

0.596

sss_behavior

1st

77

9.86 ± 3.68

76

9.50 ± 3.68

0.549

0.185

sss_behavior

2nd

34

9.62 ± 3.10

0.124

33

8.79 ± 3.10

0.367

0.276

0.427

sss_cognitive

1st

77

8.23 ± 3.66

76

8.20 ± 3.66

0.951

0.018

sss_cognitive

2nd

34

8.53 ± 3.12

-0.148

33

7.29 ± 3.11

0.453

0.106

0.620

sss

1st

77

28.10 ± 10.09

76

27.66 ± 10.09

0.785

0.093

sss

2nd

34

27.97 ± 8.25

0.028

33

25.00 ± 8.22

0.553

0.142

0.617

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(202.97) = -0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.32)

2st

t(208.06) = 1.23, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.89)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(192.03) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.01)

2st

t(204.98) = 1.77, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.44)

ras_confidence

1st

t(172.91) = 0.55, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.09)

2st

t(211.08) = 1.30, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.71 to 3.47)

ras_willingness

1st

t(173.25) = 0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.86)

2st

t(210.84) = 2.09, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.70)

ras_goal

1st

t(182.45) = 0.76, p = 0.446, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.38)

2st

t(205.97) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.52)

ras_reliance

1st

t(174.52) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.24)

2st

t(209.96) = 1.52, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.27 to 2.13)

ras_domination

1st

t(187.28) = -1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.28)

2st

t(204.98) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.94)

symptom

1st

t(164.01) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.74 to 3.10)

2st

t(216.00) = -0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-4.44 to 2.53)

slof_work

1st

t(172.20) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.18 to 0.89)

2st

t(211.59) = 0.13, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.83 to 2.09)

slof_relationship

1st

t(170.62) = 0.95, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.82)

2st

t(212.74) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.66 to 4.14)

satisfaction

1st

t(170.83) = 1.42, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.65 to 3.93)

2st

t(212.59) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.59 to 5.20)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(168.02) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.75)

2st

t(214.52) = 0.85, p = 0.397, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.13)

mhc_social

1st

t(173.07) = 0.53, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.34)

2st

t(210.96) = 0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.52)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(172.75) = 0.43, p = 0.671, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.57)

2st

t(211.19) = 0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.32)

resilisnce

1st

t(177.17) = 1.00, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.19)

2st

t(208.32) = 2.45, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.47 to 4.30)

social_provision

1st

t(178.06) = 1.73, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.72)

2st

t(207.84) = 2.73, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.47 to 2.91)

els_value_living

1st

t(174.81) = 1.41, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.72)

2st

t(209.77) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.18)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(167.70) = 1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.93)

2st

t(214.72) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.19)

els

1st

t(166.58) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.48)

2st

t(215.33) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.99)

social_connect

1st

t(166.33) = -0.50, p = 0.615, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.82 to 2.27)

2st

t(215.45) = -2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-7.89 to -0.46)

shs_agency

1st

t(168.22) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.50)

2st

t(214.40) = 1.43, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.56 to 3.46)

shs_pathway

1st

t(169.52) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.10)

2st

t(213.52) = 1.05, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.41)

shs

1st

t(167.45) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.01 to 4.47)

2st

t(214.87) = 1.33, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.09 to 5.65)

esteem

1st

t(199.90) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.49)

2st

t(206.81) = 0.02, p = 0.983, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.71)

mlq_search

1st

t(182.45) = 0.99, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.67)

2st

t(205.97) = -0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.42)

mlq_presence

1st

t(174.76) = 0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.78)

2st

t(209.80) = 0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.10)

mlq

1st

t(176.06) = 0.87, p = 0.388, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.18)

2st

t(208.98) = 0.18, p = 0.855, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.63 to 3.17)

empower

1st

t(168.27) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.61 to 2.05)

2st

t(214.36) = 0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.65)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(187.16) = 0.05, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.80)

2st

t(204.99) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.95)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(173.40) = -1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.36)

2st

t(210.73) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-2.12 to 0.44)

sss_affective

1st

t(171.74) = -0.09, p = 0.926, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.17 to 1.07)

2st

t(211.92) = -1.53, p = 0.127, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.54 to 0.32)

sss_behavior

1st

t(171.33) = -0.60, p = 0.549, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.82)

2st

t(212.22) = -1.09, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.32 to 0.67)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(172.96) = -0.06, p = 0.951, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.13)

2st

t(211.04) = -1.62, p = 0.106, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.74 to 0.27)

sss

1st

t(167.41) = -0.27, p = 0.785, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-3.67 to 2.77)

2st

t(214.89) = -1.48, p = 0.142, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-6.94 to 1.00)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(103.94) = 2.25, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.90)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(92.91) = 1.32, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.55)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(78.40) = 2.86, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.57 to 3.18)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(78.62) = 1.16, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.82)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(85.15) = 1.77, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.74)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(79.48) = 2.52, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.73)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(88.91) = 2.88, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.33 to 1.80)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(72.68) = -1.84, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.61 to 0.14)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(77.92) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.48)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(76.88) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.77)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(77.02) = 1.60, p = 0.227, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.35 to 3.17)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(75.20) = 0.85, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.24)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(78.51) = 1.56, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.64)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(78.29) = 1.17, p = 0.487, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.69)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(81.32) = 3.19, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.75 to 3.26)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(81.95) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.07)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(79.68) = 1.29, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.37)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(74.99) = 1.38, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.28)

els

1st vs 2st

t(74.28) = 1.52, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.31)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(74.12) = -2.64, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-4.89 to -0.68)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(75.32) = 1.29, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.94)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(76.16) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.17)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(74.83) = 0.99, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.92)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(100.50) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.70)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(85.16) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.82)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(79.65) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.62)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(80.54) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.58 to 2.17)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(75.36) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.94)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(88.82) = 1.82, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.47)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(78.72) = -0.89, p = 0.748, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.44)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(77.62) = -2.66, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.05 to -0.29)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(77.35) = -1.55, p = 0.252, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.20)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(78.43) = -1.92, p = 0.118, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.03)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(74.81) = -2.32, p = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.95 to -0.37)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(103.30) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.50)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(92.47) = -0.93, p = 0.704, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.49)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(78.20) = 1.47, p = 0.292, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.24)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(78.42) = -1.38, p = 0.345, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.16)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(84.85) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.94)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(79.27) = 0.94, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.11)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(88.54) = -0.84, p = 0.808, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.42)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(72.57) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.45 to 1.25)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(77.74) = -0.85, p = 0.796, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.69)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(76.71) = -0.71, p = 0.965, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.93)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(76.84) = 0.86, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.48)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(75.05) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.13)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(78.31) = 0.69, p = 0.982, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.97)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(78.10) = 1.01, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.52)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(81.08) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.60)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(81.69) = -1.55, p = 0.252, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.18)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(79.47) = 0.93, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.21)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(74.85) = 1.37, p = 0.351, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.26)

els

1st vs 2st

t(74.15) = 1.39, p = 0.337, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.19)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(73.99) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.68)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(75.18) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.35)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(76.00) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(74.69) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.34)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(99.92) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.69)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(84.85) = 0.84, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.45)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(79.43) = 1.03, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.69)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(80.31) = 1.07, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.85)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(75.21) = 1.44, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.64)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(88.45) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.61)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(78.52) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.64)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(77.43) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.75)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(77.17) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.66)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(78.23) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.22)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(74.67) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.39 to 2.12)

Plot

Clinical significance